So, you really only want in game referenced commentary, and will discount "theorycrafting" (as you call it)... ?
And if those in game experiences relate to other experiences, what then? If the person having the in game experience is well versed with experience from the strategy genre in general, what then?

You set out a rough (Alpha) format for public inspection, stated you wanted feedback (without stated limitation), with the stated intent of wanting the feedback so that your rough cut of the design could be refined. What you have received is that feedback, from people actively playing the rough cut, and using varying levels of experience both in and out of the game to deliver what you asked for. Some of us are more technical and they have been giving you technical feedback. Some of us are more strategic, and they have been giving you feedback on strategy. And, some of us have done various levels of design and programming work in this very genre of gaming, you have gotten feedback on that as well. I would think, since your players have answered your call for this kind of help, all such feedback would be constructive!

If, now, you find the feedback not to your taste - sure separate us, or silence us with forms... if the problem is that we aren't as ecstatic about these changes as the Dev team... you could even lock the threads and just program whatever you wish to. The idea of any game designer soliciting feedback from their players is that feedback will be heard - both positive and negative. If all you want is the singing of praise, feedback is not what you are looking for!

Note: As of this moment, it has been several days.

You try really hard to misinterpret what I say, do you? Of course we won't silence you, in fact we keep these threads open and you can bash the update in them all you want (as long as the posts keep civil). We are thankful for all the feedback we get.

From what I saw in these threads the feedback was for the most part still very general, often based more on tastes and theories than practical examples. The former is still valid, but the latter would help us much more, that was my point. Example: It doesn't really help us if we know that a player doesn't like aspect X because he just happen to dislike X in general. What we rather want to read is why exactly aspect X is problematic, in situation Y or Z. This will help us balance aspect X better.

Another point is that the feedback is spread in multiple threads in this forum, often with intermixing different topics, making sorting and evaluating hard. That's why I proposed having specific threads for talking about specific parts of this update. Has nothing to do with silencing.

Okay, having played this for a few days now, and looking at it from a Frontline Pioneer, lvl 100+ player aspect for actual gameplay related comments (since you guys asked) here are some of my thoughts:

1) Unit Upgrades - so I understand why auto upgrades are being removed... have had many battles where a golder pops a unit up 3 lvls seconds before engaging and totally changes the dynamic of the battle BUT there still should be a way for units to upgrade to a better version or AT LEAST be disbanded once the better version is researched (on a side note, paras should also be able to re-emplane at an airport). IRL, many units in wars have received materiel upgrades, why prevent that possibility in game? Perhaps have it return to a factory of it's type and spend a day there? As it is, you get many useless units left hanging around burning resources or have to literally suicide your troops, which leaves a bad taste to those of us who are used to trying to, you know, keep our troops ALIVE. The suicide option is very attractive with this format, but takes much of the skill out of unit movement and attack decisions which is a BIG loss to those of us who chose to play this game because it ISN'T a zerg rush with a different skin.

2) Unit Balancing - have noticed several balancing issues, most notable being that a transport ship seems to have better combat stats than a basic DD. Say what?!?! yes, you heard me... a dedicated combat ship can get it's ass handed to it by a transport. (just had that happen in the test game I was playing) so now you no longer have the fun of setting up convoy defenses or trying to sneak a guy past the naval screen and then nail biting for hours while wondering if they will get past, all you have to do is pack 10 infantry into a stack and send it across the sea to presumably board the ship with a bunch of 5 inch guns like they were Errol Flynn in a buccanneer flick and take it over if it tries to stop them on their way to landing in someone's backfield. Other balancing issues of concern to me are overpowered ground aa units, LT's that can take out AT's, and much as I love mech inf, op mech inf that can take out medium tanks anywhere but in the open at early levels from what I am seeing in the unit info tabs. Methinks more thought needs to go into this.

3) Diplomacy - So the morale effects of wars is now different enough that it seems to belong to a totally different game. Not saying that they aren't interesting, but you're ENTIRELY losing the flavour of the existing game, which (to me at least) is a loss. this being still early game, that may not be the case later, but for now, it's annoying. I won't miss the penalty for being the guy who attacks a province, loses a big stack fighting another stack only to watch some guy step in at the last pulse and steal the province and make you the sneak attack bad guy, but that's just about the ONLY good thing I can see about it.

4) Economy - SOoo... the elephant in the room... couple of sub categories here:a)NOT a fan of the "urban areas only" for build options. There are many instances in the past historically of major production centers being built specifically for a war effort in the middle of nowhere, from the port at Ravenna in classical times to Stalingrad in WWII. How do you think the cities came about in the first place, anyway? They were built because people got together where business needed to occur. Unless building infra past a certain level suddenly makes a province a city, you are TOTALLY limiting how the game will be played. There's a lot more freedom of possible actions when the factory/navy yard/airstrip/etc can be anywhere in your territory instead of the predictable few locations and the starting cities in several nations leave MASSIVE gaps in defenses on one side of the nation being played (most egregious examples are italy with no ability to put a navy yard in the adriatic and russia with no ability to build major troop types in the south and east although other countries have similar problems) as italy (since that is the nation I'm playing at the moment) it literally FORCED me to attack yugo instantly to prevent those overpowered transports from raping me while the navy that could only be built in naples, rome and genoa took it's time arriving and then was relatively ineffective once it got there until I had cruisers patrolling.b)Infra and ports no longer providing production boosts - this is one of the features that first got me hooked on the game yet here you are taking it away. I LOVED that the more you spent on roads and ports the better commerce could occur and thus the higher your production in a province. Why remove that option? As far as I can see it does not unbalance things to leave it in, and it makes things more interesting to have to decide "do I build another factory level or do I need better shipping and embarkation times" or "another factory or roads, gotta get my troops across the map faster and reduce distance from the capitol for morale" Not sure about later in game, but you have literally made infra useless in the early game and a cool mechanic for the ports is gone as well.c)Unit research, build and upkeep costs - so I was one of the guys who years ago suggested changing up research and upkeep costs to reflect differences in unit types... blanket costs of ALL resources was NOT what we had in mind when we suggested that. The idea was that infantry needed more food and goods, planes needed more rares and oil and metal, tanks needed metal and oil, rockets needed rares and oil, and like specifics. the INTENT of the suggestion was to make different army compositions require different resources and therefore require different strategic goals for each nation to add to the dynamic. Instead, we have "everybody needs everything, so NOTHING is more important than anything else" Cue for elevator music and boring blandness.d)Market Revamp - I know as a player who has had a youtube game ruined by market cheating and resource dumping that you had to fix the problem but DAMN this is not the way to do it. Closing off all ability to trade outside your coalition is just STUPID, and a blanket tax doesn't seem to accomplish anything gameplay wise other than annoy EVERYONE since the tax applies to all transactions now so is no different in effect to taxless transactions. Where's the tax going anyway, graft for the customs inspectors? Last I checked, taxes were implemented by nations, so why can't we impose taxes of our choosing upon transactions if you want to have them? As it stands, it's just a resource drain that does not prevent the behavior of resource dumping to another player that it was meant to stop. e) Multiple options for building types optimized for specific unit types - hey, I bet you thought my entire post would be negative, but SURPRISE, here's something I am very happy with! (unlike a lot of others) I've always felt that the basic infra/factory requirements for unit types was too broad, having been in manufacturing, each type of vehicle or system needs very specific and DIFFERENT machine tools and fixtures to build, this change reflects that, and further, (not certain as we haven't hit that point in the research tree day-wise yet but it seems likely) allows you to build things like commandos and paras somewhere else besides your capitol meaning you are no-longer limited to one or the other, and no-longer need to wait literal DAYS for the commandos to get across the map.

Okay, so those are my long winded first impressions of the new game format so far, based upon issues and decisions influenced by actual gameplay. Hope you devs find it useful, and hope you other players comment on my points with thoughts of your own.

Have fun gang
-C

Thanks for the constructive feedback!

1) We actually plan to implement a functionality in the future to manually upgrade units on the map to higher levels. This should alleviate your concerns hopefully.

2) The balancing is still very rough and will be tweaked alot in the coming months, thanks to the help of the players. Regarding your specific examples: Transport ship has lower fighting values than Destroyers, so I could not really confirm this. You can check the stats yourself. Maybe there was an additional damage source?
Regarding ATs: LTs should not be able to take them out when the AT is defending in a city.
Ground AA needs to be much stronger than in the old version as long as we don't have ranged anti air. That's because AA is always only a single purpose reactionary,unit and can never catch or damage planes on their own. A smart plane user can always outrun a ground AA user, who in turn needs to build alot of AA and spread them everywhere to have an effect, which is a huge commitment and makes him open for ground attacks.
I can also not confirm mechanized units being stronger than medium tanks, the values show it is clearly in favor of medium tanks. Remember that MT are now heavy armor while Mech Inf is light armor, when comparing the values (plus also keep hitpoints in mind).
But yes, balancing is far from final and we will finetune it.

3) Yeah its different but from what I heard alot of players actually disliked the morale penalties forwar, as they were punishing you for what the game wants you to do, and them being exploitable (e.g. 5 players declaring war on you to ruin your morale).

4)
a) noted

b) we wanted to clearly separate building roles, to give them all their own purpose. We want players to really make a choice of "I want to upgrade my economy now" or "I want more movement speed" or "I need to produce ships now", instead of building 1-2 buildings and just taking all of their effects as a bonus. Your specific examples given are still in the game btw, naval bases still decrease embarking times, Infrastructure still decreases movement times.

c) The new balancing reflects that, Infs need more Food, Artis more goods, tanks more oil, planes more rare etc, the difference is just that you now also need small quantities of the other resources. This version won in our internal debates. The other version would be to have certain units cost only 2-3 different main resources (plus money and manpower), and the others not at all. Both were a departure from the old model. Maybe we will still discuss and change this again.

d) this is not part of the CoW 1.5 update, it was already in the game beforehand. Reasoning and discussions about this topic can be found in other threads. We are thinking about adjusting the most critisized aspect though in a future update (no promises yet).

e) thanks, glad you like it.

Your feedback was indeed useful, maybe you can make another comment when you are much further into he game how your impressions changed, if at all :).

So, you really only want in game referenced commentary, and will discount "theorycrafting" (as you call it)... ?
And if those in game experiences relate to other experiences, what then? If the person having the in game experience is well versed with experience from the strategy genre in general, what then?

You set out a rough (Alpha) format for public inspection, stated you wanted feedback (without stated limitation), with the stated intent of wanting the feedback so that your rough cut of the design could be refined. What you have received is that feedback, from people actively playing the rough cut, and using varying levels of experience both in and out of the game to deliver what you asked for. Some of us are more technical and they have been giving you technical feedback. Some of us are more strategic, and they have been giving you feedback on strategy. And, some of us have done various levels of design and programming work in this very genre of gaming, you have gotten feedback on that as well. I would think, since your players have answered your call for this kind of help, all such feedback would be constructive!

If, now, you find the feedback not to your taste - sure separate us, or silence us with forms... if the problem is that we aren't as ecstatic about these changes as the Dev team... you could even lock the threads and just program whatever you wish to. The idea of any game designer soliciting feedback from their players is that feedback will be heard - both positive and negative. If all you want is the singing of praise, feedback is not what you are looking for!

Note: As of this moment, it has been several days.

Technical question: How can I give 433 LIKES to Alphareds spot-on commentary?

_Pontus_
Wargaming veteran from Risk, through Axis&Allies to World At War to various RT-GS-MMO
Champion of the 1987 and 1988 International A&A Xmas Tournaments (both time playing Axis ffs...And yes; thát old)
Chose to play S1914 & CoW for more than 1 reason.
Is not enthousiastic, but somewhat positive about S1 as a new game.
Is mordicus against the foolishness unleashed on CoW...for many well founded reasons.
This player even used S1914 twice as a selection tool to choose team members for a delicate project...successfully; and would NEVER use the changed CoW or 1.5 as such.

The post was edited 3 times, last by _Pontus_ (Nov 11th 2019, 8:02pm).

I have to agree to something Nooberium has said in this thread:It would help us much more if you posted actual experiences from playing the Event instead of theorycrafting why you think the game will die if we release these changes. We mentioned many times already that we will not release CoW 1.5 in the current form, because this version is still very rough. It will be tweaked alot in the coming months, with the help of your feedback. Therefore it will help us greatly if you explain why certain changes are good or bad by giving practical examples of your CoW 1.5 game round. I doubt that some of the changes can be judged without playing with them for several days, and I fear that some players are disliking them just because they are different, not wanting to give them a chance at all. You can of course dislike them for being different, but it won't help us much in improving them.

You can help us shape this version for the better, but for that we need civil discussions and constructive feedback based on practical experiences of playing with these changes. Thanks!

Maybe we should make new threads for posting practical feedback on specific topics, or create a feedback form to do so, because in these threads alot of different topics get thrown around. Will announce that if we decide to do so

(Emphasis added)

It didn't take much skill at reading between the lines to get the idea behind your comments.

Feedback welcome
Outside experience(s) ("theorycrafting", as you call it) tainted
Stubbornness to the reason(s) you have enjoyed our game so far... implicitly evil
Approving the direction of the changes, and joyfully refining them for us... constructive

To much tainted evil discussion will result in the breaking up of the discussion, or silencing it (but you will be able to fill out a handy form).

Where is the misinterpretation? You clearly want to hear what you wanted to hear. Your Community is giving you the honest feedback you asked for.

(You handed an Alpha to the entire community... and you expect them to treat it like seasoned Beta testers - with cold hard technical critiques?!?!?! You expect your actual Beta testers, who were sidelined, to handle the technical critiques with the same, completely voluntary, professionalism?!?!?!)

a. that now the upgrades of units are totally unrealistic as well explained before in a post, stating that a regiment at max level is a 1000x more powerful than a the same regiment at level 1, spanning a period of max 8 years (1938 to 1945).
Unrealistic and historically incorrect.

b. that now a new building is required for every separate purpose, while a short while ago it was hailed by all players (that bothered to notice) that Infra got an extra effect, namely boosting morale.
But now the opposite is being introduced?
How inconsistent...

c. Ad.b., if doing so, buildings should also be reduced in cost (extremely) because the resource situation is so tight, that constructing anything meaningful takes days (Farmville awaits...), especially with a not well functioning market and no trade among players (unless you let yourself be forced into a coalition, which only for that reason I refuse).
And this forces one to make a choice of what is going to be produced in a certain city, yes, but after that choice, no other choices remain, which is so boring compared to the old game.
This concept is s o o o s l o o o w, limiting and thus uninteresting.

d. that resources and cash are so tight, that one is almost forced to buy them with gold, if one wants to maintain any speed in the game (so obvious...no further comment).

e. and bothersome that the game is even slowed down further and at the same time, all game choices to speed things up have been reduced to quickly massacre a neighbor, turning the game into 'a hack 'n slash' what was once a truly great Grand Strategy game.
Day 3 my resource and cash output has improved by 50% at least from taking over a neighbor, while the improved output from IC's contributed maybe 15-20%. Especially concerning cash income, the conquest was rewarding.
So, this new game forces players to conquer for resources, cash an manpower improvement, whereas before it was more of a choice.

f. that my level improvement of weapon factories has been delayed by building IC's, which only yield a tiny little bit extra output compared to conquest, but that little bit will still be extremely important to do research AND upgrade weapon factories AND build the weapons.
It is slowing the game even more.

g. that units have no option to be upgraded. As if the first Tiger tanks were not refitted with heavier guns later on and only new Tigers got these? Or take Pz IV, which underwent numerous upgrades, mostly executed in the field.
It is unrealistic and historically incorrect.
It will also kill K/D's of players; one of the core stats players were working on (well, not the fly-by ones and rookies, but anyone with a bit of competitive game-blood and experience)

h. that so many layers of the old game-play have been taken away, limiting choices in the field of economics, strategy, tactics and diplomacy. It was that variety which distinguished the old CoW from the masses of strategy games out there.
This so much more boring now.

i. that players are basically forced to join in coalitions, if they want access any meaningful diplo and trade options.
And even then, diplo remains limited.
It is also totally unrealistic and historically incorrect.

j. that few measures really impact morale, few measures impact AI popularity etc. while these are major factors in the long run.
Incomplete?

Oh wait... I am now nicely and constructively listing things for Freezy and Co. that have already all been said so many times... Methinks, however, that form and nicety should be far less important than CONTENT.
If the form and nicety are of such far greater importance than content, it seems egos are talking and not common sense.

But I can't be nice about the murder of my favorite past time. My nicer comments have been neglected as all the nicer comments of others, and here we are: CoW is in a coma since the start of the BAD CHANGES and we are all trying out this new thingy 1.5.
And going through the forum pages, I notice that - except some rookies commenting - NONE of the veterans really like or appreciate ... let alone hailed ... ANY of the BAD CHANGES nor the new game 1.5.
still we are here where we are now...

The post was edited 3 times, last by _Pontus_ (Nov 12th 2019, 12:20am).

Theoretically, Call of War is great game because it combines economy, a research tree, choice of troops to deploy, tactical considerations and diplomatic relations. All of these dimensions are inter-related so strategy must consider them all and decisions often involve trade-offs. Depth and nuance in these dimensions makes the game interesting.

In practice, ... (insert complaints here)

The search for the optimum implementation seems to elude us all. Dare we hope that order will emerge from the chaos?

I love Risk!!! There's so much diplomacy in that game. All though I really need to check out Axis and Allies. Looks like a great game too.

Theoretically, Call of War is great game because it combines economy, a research tree, choice of troops to deploy, tactical considerations and diplomatic relations. All of these dimensions are inter-related so strategy must consider them all and decisions often involve trade-offs. Depth and nuance in these dimensions makes the game interesting.

In practice, ... (insert complaints here)

The search for the optimum implementation seems to elude us all. Dare we hope that order will emerge from the chaos?

I love Risk!!! There's so much diplomacy in that game. All though I really need to check out Axis and Allies. Looks like a great game too.

a. that now the upgrades of units are totally unrealistic as well explained before in a post, stating that a regiment at max level is a 1000x more powerful than a the same regiment at level 1, spanning a period of max 8 years (1938 to 1945).
Unrealistic and historically incorrect.

b. that now a new building is required for every separate purpose, while a short while ago it was hailed by all players (that bothered to notice) that Infra got an extra effect, namely boosting morale.
But now the opposite is being introduced?
How inconsistent...

c. Ad.b., if doing so, buildings should also be reduced in cost (extremely) because the resource situation is so tight, that constructing anything meaningful takes days (Farmville awaits...), especially with a not well functioning market and no trade among players (unless you let yourself be forced into a coalition, which only for that reason I refuse).
And this forces one to make a choice of what is going to be produced in a certain city, yes, but after that choice, no other choices remain, which is so boring compared to the old game.
This concept is s o o o s l o o o w, limiting and thus uninteresting.

d. that resources and cash are so tight, that one is almost forced to buy them with gold, if one wants to maintain any speed in the game (so obvious...no further comment).

e. and bothersome that the game is even slowed down further and at the same time, all game choices to speed things up have been reduced to quickly massacre a neighbor, turning the game into 'a hack 'n slash' what was once a truly great Grand Strategy game.
Day 3 my resource and cash output has improved by 50% at least from taking over a neighbor, while the improved output from IC's contributed maybe 15-20%. Especially concerning cash income, the conquest was rewarding.
So, this new game forces players to conquer for resources, cash an manpower improvement, whereas before it was more of a choice.

f. that my level improvement of weapon factories has been delayed by building IC's, which only yield a tiny little bit extra output compared to conquest, but that little bit will still be extremely important to do research AND upgrade weapon factories AND build the weapons.
It is slowing the game even more.

g. that units have no option to be upgraded. As if the first Tiger tanks were not refitted with heavier guns later on and only new Tigers got these? Or take Pz IV, which underwent numerous upgrades, mostly executed in the field.
It is unrealistic and historically incorrect.
It will also kill K/D's of players; one of the core stats players were working on (well, not the fly-by ones and rookies, but anyone with a bit of competitive game-blood and experience)

h. that so many layers of the old game-play have been taken away, limiting choices in the field of economics, strategy, tactics and diplomacy. It was that variety which distinguished the old CoW from the masses of strategy games out there.
This so much more boring now.

i. that players are basically forced to join in coalitions, if they want access any meaningful diplo and trade options.
And even then, diplo remains limited.
It is also totally unrealistic and historically incorrect.

j. that few measures really impact morale, few measures impact AI popularity etc. while these are major factors in the long run.
Incomplete?

Oh wait... I am now nicely and constructively listing things for Freezy and Co. that have already all been said so many times... Methinks, however, that form and nicety should be far less important than CONTENT.
If the form and nicety are of such far greater importance than content, it seems egos are talking and not common sense.

But I can't be nice about the murder of my favorite past time. My nicer comments have been neglected as all the nicer comments of others, and here we are: CoW is in a coma since the start of the BAD CHANGES and we are all trying out this new thingy 1.5.
And going through the forum pages, I notice that - except some rookies commenting - NONE of the veterans really like or appreciate ... let alone hailed ... ANY of the BAD CHANGES nor the new game 1.5.
still we are here where we are now...

FINALLY actual feedback from you on CoW 1.5, thank you very much. With feedback like this we can work.

a) ok so you only see realism problems with that, but not gameplay problems? Amounts to taste then.

b) we did it to give players more meaningful economic choice of what to build when and where. In the old version players had no real choices because there were only very few buildings which gave alot of effects, so naturally you just built most of them, taking all their effects as a bonus. I think it makes much more sense to spread the effects into different buildings, to create choices. Maybe the costs are too high now, but that is something we can balance.

c) Seems most of your and most other player's critique boils down to having too few resources, limiting the choices and resulting in a slower pace. Luckily that is a very easy thing to fix and we will certainly tweak it in the next version.

d) same as c), easily tweakable and it will be tweaked.

e) same as c), easily tweakable and it will be tweaked.

f) same as c), easily tweakable and it will be tweaked. Also, of course also building effects and production times etc. can be tweaked. We decided to give resource boosting buildings a higher build time as they are pretty valuable, and it gives another choice to the user as he needs to decide when the right time is to stop unit production and upgrade the economy.

g) As stated in my other responses and even the detailed list in the Mechanics news thread, we will most likely include an option to upgrade units on the field manually, for some resources and time. This should both be realistic and alleviate most concerns.

h) You are probably refering to changes made before 1.5, and thus not really belonging to the 1.5 feedback. Regarding strategies we will work hard to enable more strategies than in the old version.

i) same as h), a change made before 1.5. We are thinking however to adress the main criticism of the ban on trades outside coalitions and implement a different mechanic. But more on that when we have something to share.

j) reworking how morale works in the game is on our plan, there will be more morale based features in the future. Also there will be an iupdate soon on AI popularity to make it going less out of hand.

k) We communicated even before starting the Event that the first balancing is really rough. We definitely need to tweak alot of the unit balancing in future rounds, and here specific examples would help alot.

l) Well you can try to blitz a neighbor on day 1, it will actually be harder in 1.5 as the starting units are more defensive focused than in the old version. Several players however stated in the forum that they think there are multiple possible strategies for the early game. Turtling together with economic boom, rushing and securing technogical advantage. We may not be there yet but we will try to make different strategies possible.

Your judgement reads as if you think this is the final version. You should however rather judge this as a very early and rough version, which can be heavily tweaked and adjusted. And detailed feedback like that will help us doing so So thanks for taking the time to write it.

I have a question about the research and leveling of units. would be nice if you could still spend resources to upgrade units built at lower levels in the new version 1.5 game. dont like the idea of stacks of units with different levels example infantry at three different levels. we lose a lot of fun from upgrading units for tactical advantages

I have another idea. im a game designer so forgive me lol. infrastructure lost a lot of relevance in this new version. my idea is having infrastructure lead to quicker reinforcement of units in that province like every 12 hours instead of just at day change or maybe even a better reinforcement at day change for units in a territory with infrastructure and it gets better with every level max at 5 as usual or three.

b. that now a new building is required for every separate purpose, while a short while ago it was hailed by all players (that bothered to notice) that Infra got an extra effect, namely boosting morale.
But now the opposite is being introduced?
How inconsistent...

b) we did it to give players more meaningful economic choice of what to build when and where. In the old version players had no real choices because there were only very few buildings which gave alot of effects, so naturally you just built most of them, taking all their effects as a bonus. I think it makes much more sense to spread the effects into different buildings, to create choices. Maybe the costs are too high now, but that is something we can balance.

Except, technically, and in reality, players were already making their own choices - without all the complications and limitations of "one building for one purpose".

I will explain, each player had non-specific purpose factories. They built them, and made a choice (along with research) on what to produce first, then (along with any additional research required) made a choice on what to build next, etc., etc. That is choice in action.

Separating the buildings into single purpose roles only means players will have to take more (server) time to build all the buildings so they can get all the effects that they use to get with just one building - and less (server) time.

I have a question about the research and leveling of units. would be nice if you could still spend resources to upgrade units built at lower levels in the new version 1.5 game. dont like the idea of stacks of units with different levels example infantry at three different levels. we lose a lot of fun from upgrading units for tactical advantages

That is indeed an option that we think about implementing in future versions of the Event.

I have another idea. im a game designer so forgive me lol. infrastructure lost a lot of relevance in this new version. my idea is having infrastructure lead to quicker reinforcement of units in that province like every 12 hours instead of just at day change or maybe even a better reinforcement at day change for units in a territory with infrastructure and it gets better with every level max at 5 as usual or three.

Technically not an easy thing to do. While we may rework how morale works some time in the future, for now we can balance Infrastructure by changing its values. We can for example make it cheaper, of increase its effects. We already increased the movement speed units get from Infrastructure.

So I think I asked the following question on the wrong thread and taking in count it seems this thread is more "general" regarding the whole Call of War 1.5 update, I'd like to ask the game designer(s):

Are there any plans in improving Call of War outside of the playing field?

So I think I asked the following question on the wrong thread and taking in count it seems this thread is more "general" regarding the whole Call of War 1.5 update, I'd like to ask the game designer(s):

Are there any plans in improving Call of War outside of the playing field?

There always were plans to improve the social aspects of the game and some social features nearly made it in the recent past, for now they just don't have the highest priority. Once we are finished with the gameplay overhaul, it is a possibility that we will make social features a higher prio again.

So I think I asked the following question on the wrong thread and taking in count it seems this thread is more "general" regarding the whole Call of War 1.5 update, I'd like to ask the game designer(s):

Are there any plans in improving Call of War outside of the playing field?

Add fixing the permanent and omnipresent (already in s1914 and now in Pokemon-CoW) annoying issues like :
- seemingly random jumping of cursor to top of message when writing a in-game message
- seemingly random jumping of addressee of message, causing messages to be sent to the wrong addressee (often the enemy)
- the jumping up in the HC Building/Production Wait List after each action
- adding a link between the object in the building wait list and te province (with 1 click to go there)
- add selecting only units or only buildings (or even more detailed selection) in building wait list ( I am somehow sure that was a feature in s1914 at some time, but maybe that is just a nice fantasy)

All these hyper annoying things should have the highest priority to achieve better client satisfaction.

I am also always having plans. Lots. The crux is in executing them ... as well as in the right order of priority

what is going on with unescorted troop transports. I attacked a stack of ground units on the ocean in transports with no escort ships. I attacked with lvl2 cruisers destroyers and subs. my ships were immediately destroyed and did little damage to that stack. upon landing I built a sub in the port being invaded. my sub was immediately destroyed. all my bombers and fighters above this unescorted transports were shot down within an hour with little damage to his stack. if this is the new version im going to some other online game. unable to upgrade old units has left my stacks a mess and cant even gold forts without it being ridiculous expensive which mans no easy defense against big spending players